Common use of Attitudes Clause in Contracts

Attitudes. Finally, participants indicated their own attitude towards large- scale implementation of CCS on a 9- point scale (1= strongly opposed to large-scale implementation of CCS, 9 = strongly in favor of large-scale implementation of CCS). Participants in the low-trust condition clearly expected the source to be less trustworthy (M = 2.32, SD = .97) than participants in the high-trust condition did (M = 4.88, SD = .88), t(34) = -8.27, p < .001, as intended. Thus, the source trustworthiness manipulation again was successful. The results for the analysis on the self-report measure of source-guided information selection revealed that participants were more likely to indicate that their information selection had been influenced by the source in the low-trust condition (M = 3.54, SD = 1.13) than in the high-trust condition (M = 2.53, SD = 1.45), t(34) = 2.34, p = .025. Thus, like in Study 3.1 and as predicted in Hypothesis 2a, information selection was reported to be more strongly source-guided under low than under high source trustworthiness. Next, we examined whether the findings of participants’ actual information converged with the findings from the self-report measure. To examine this, we regressed participants’ information selection scores onto the viewpoint they had expected from the information source. We performed separate analyses for each experimental condition. Our prediction was that participants’ information- selection scores would be more strongly related to the source’s expected viewpoint in the low-trust than in the high-trust condition, indicating more source-guided information selection under low compared to high trustworthiness (Hypothesis 2a). Moreover, with regard to the direction of source-guided information selection, we predicted source-confirming information selection in the high-trust condition and source-disconfirming information selection in the low-trust condition (Hypothesis 3). The regression analysis in the high-trust condition first of all demonstrated that participants’ information selection was not related to the viewpoint they had expected from the source (β = .01, ns). In other words, in the high-trust condition neither source-confirming nor source-disconfirming information selection occurred. By contrast, the regression coefficient in the low-trust condition did prove significant (β = -.52, p = .022). Thus, findings of the regression analyses converge with participants’ self-reported motives for information selection: Information selection appeared to be somewhat more source-guided in the low- trust condition than in the high-trust condition (Fisher’s Z = -1.60; p = .055, one- sided), like in Study 3.1 and as predicted in Hypothesis 2b. o Moreover, the negative value of the regression coefficient in the low-trust condition indicates that participants’ information selection in this condition indeed was source- disconfirming, providing support for Hypothesis 3. That is, the more participants in the low-trust condition expected the source to be a proponent of CCS, the more they preferred information con CCS over information pro CCS. In sum, the findings of Study 3.2 corroborate with our predictions about the influence of o The number of consequences participants selected was near the maximum value of 10 (M = 8.28, SD = 2.56) and did not vary with source trustworthiness, t(34) -.61, ns. Also in both experimental conditions participants selected a considerable amount of both positive (M = 3.81, SD = 1.56) and negative (M = 4.47, SD = 1.53) CCS consequences, which can be interpreted as a relatively balanced information selection. In this study we also measured participants’ initial attitudes to check for the occurrence of attitude- guided information selection. Analyses revealed that participants’ information selection in both experimental conditions was unrelated to their pre-measure of attitudes (p-values of regression analyses